julian the hierophant of eleusis

7/21/2019 Julian the Hierophant of Eleusis

1/4

documented thatfiere is also in use as the second-person singular future.10 Only do

Neue Wagener come close (3.269). They observe that in Augustines quotation of

Gen. 27:29 at Ciu. Dei 16.37, et fiere dominus, fiere might be taken as the future,

but they decide, sensibly and correctly, to take it as the imperative.11

But there is at least one virtually certain instance offiereas the second-person future.

In the fourth-century work attributed to Philo and known as the Liber AntiquitatumBiblicarum, the author writes,facies tibi idola et erunt tibi in deos et tu fiere eis sacer-

dos(44.2). The fact thatfiereis clearly parallel toeruntmakes it highly likely that fiere

is a future. In addition, there is a parallel textual tradition that here reads, instead offiere,

eris,12 thus making it virtually certain that fiere here is the future.13

University of Illinois, Urbana H O WA R D J A C O B S O N

doi:10.1093/cq/bmi070

JULIAN, THE HIEROPHANT OF ELEUSIS, AND THE ABOLITION OF

CONSTANTIUS TYRANNY

In his Lives of the Philosophers and the Sophists, Eunapius mentions the esteem in

which the last Eumolpid hierophant of Eleusis was held by the future Caesar

Julian, who in the final years of his private life was developing a deep interest in

the gods and rituals of antiquity. Eunapius goes on to recount how Julian, after pacify-

ing Gaul, summoned the hierophant from Greece and having with his aid performed

certain rites known to them alone, he mustered up courage to abolish the tyranny of

Constantius. His accomplices were Oribasius of Pergamon and a certain Euhemerus, anative of Libya. . . But all this has been described in fuller detail in my work on

Julian (476)a reference to Eunapius lost History. Later, in the section devoted

to Oribasius, Eunapius refers again to his History, where he had apparently described

how Oribasius great virtues had actually made Julian emperor (498). We will come

back to this ambiguous statement at the end of our discussion.1

As far as I am aware, all historians who have discussed these passages have linked

them to the acclamation of Julian as Augustus by his troops in Paris in the spring of

360.2 We have a number of more or less detailed accounts of that event, by Julian

10 See e.g. TLL s.v. facio, col. 85 (with several examples in Augustine and Jerome);

A. Blaise, Dictionnaire Latin-Francais des Auteurs Chretiens (Paris, 1954), 354, s.v. fio,imper. fiere, with examples from Augustine.

11 In so doing, they follow H. Ronsch, Itala und Vulgata (repr. Munich, 1965), 294.12 See D. J. Harringtonsapparatus criticusad loc.,Pseudo-Philon, Les Antiquites Bibliques

1 (Paris, 1976).13 Very possibly, they are both translations ofgenhs}.1 Translated by W. C. Wright, Philostratus and Eunapius: The Lives of the Sophists

(Cambridge, MA and London, 1921), 43841, 5323. The fragments of Eunapius Historyare gathered and translated in R. C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the

Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus (Liverpool, 19813,2 vols), 323 (fr. 21.12).

2 For example, in B. Baldwin, The Career of Oribasius, Acta Classica18 (1975), 8597 at

8993; G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (London, 1978), 501; J. F. Drinkwater, Thepagan underground, Constantius IIs secret service, and the survival, and the usurpationof Julian the Apostate, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 3 (1983), 34887 at370ff., 382 3, citing other previous discussions; J. Matthews, The Roman Empire of

Ammianus (London, 1989), 93, 115; and P. Athanassiadi, Julian: An Intellectual Biography(London and New York, 1992), 1856.

S H O R T E R N O T E S652


2/4

himself, and by Libanius, Ammianus Marcellinus, and others, all of them denying

that Julian orchestrated the acclamation, which was a spontaneous reaction by the

troops to unpopular orders by Constantius. To be sure, our chief sources are friendly

to Julian and would not wish to contradict his oath that he had not instigated the revolt.

Yet none of those hostile to Julian, such as Gregorius of Nazianzus, contradicted his

version of events either. The most recent discussion finds no reasonable grounds onwhich to deny the official version,3 and the level of cynicism necessary to deny it

would invalidate the legitimacy of all imperial accessions.

Be that as it may, this is not the place to go into the narrative details and the stra-

tegic and political context of the Paris acclamation. Our concern is with what the hier-

ophant of Eleusis, Oribasius, and Euhemerus did to promote Julians rise to power and

when they did it. Eunapius seemingly cryptic remarks seem to undermine the official

version and to point toward a conspiracy of pagan priests and intellectuals to elevate

Julian to the throne and displace Constantius.

Nothing more known of Euhemerus. The hierophant is identified as Nestorius, the

grandfather of the Neoplatonist Plutarchus.4

In any case, he was almost certainlyversed in the theurgic and Neoplatonic version of Greek paganism that Julian

favoured and would have been regarded by him as a genuine philosopher. More is

known about Oribasius, who produced a successful medical encyclopedia, but all

we need to note here is that he was a friend of Julian and wrote a memoir used by

Eunapius, making the latters lost History a second-hand source of information.5

Oribasius accompanied Julian, probably as his physician, at least from Milan in

355 to the young emperors death in Persia in 363.

Julian and the hierophant, therefore, in the company of Oribasius and Euhemerus,

performed certain rituals that enabled Julian to overthrow Constantius. These may

have been auguries ( for example, to discover when Constantius would die), orthey may have theurgically invoked some supernatural power to come to their aid.

In any case, Eunapius does not tell us when all of this happened, which is the

crucial point. These rituals were in fact probably performedafter the acclamation

at Paris, in the eighteen months or so before Constantius death in November

361. It is likely that they had nothing whatever to do with the Paris acclamation

of 360.

There is abundant evidence that Julian made use of supernatural means after he

decided to march against Constantius. Libanius notes that Julian was not surprised

by the announcement of Constantius death as he had been forewarned by an

oracle. His account implies that this oracle was of recent vintage and directed toJulian personally (Or. 18.11718). It is also in the year after Paris that Ammianus

places his account of Julians trust in prophetic dreams, signs, and oracles (21.1

2). He quotes an oracle predicting the death of Constantius, different from the one

mentioned by Libanius (though they are sometimes conflated in modern accounts).

The historian mentions more secret rites to Bellona before the march eastward

(21.5.1). In the Balkans, and before learning of his cousins death, Julian continued

3 Matthews, ibid., 93100.4

For the debate, see Athanassiadi (n. 2), 186 n. 99. For Nestorios, see A. H. M. Jones, J. R.Martindale, and J. Morris (edd.),The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Vol. 1. A.D.260-395 (Cambridge, 1971), 626; and K. Clinton, The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian

Mysteries (Philadelphia, 1974), 434.5 For Oribasius in general, see Baldwin (n. 2). For his hypomnema, see Eunapius, fr. 15, in

Blockley (n. 1), 2.20 1.

S H O R T E R N O T E S 653


3/4

to consult soothsayers and augurs (22.1). Zosimus tells us that at Nassus, Julian

consulted with the soothsayers (3.11).6 The hierophant could have been involved

in any or all of the episodes recounted in these sources. In fact, in his Lives,

Eunapius expounds specifically on his ability to predict the future (475 6). We

should also remember that Julian did not remove his Christian mask until after the

death of Constantius, so Eunapius claim that the rites performed by the hierophantwere secret can apply to any time before November 361.

Julian himself claimed in a letter to his uncle Julian, written just after Constantius

death, that he sought divine assistance in his war against him. At the same time he

wrote to the philosopher Maximus and informed him that during the war he had

feared for his safety and kept inquiring of the godsnot that I ventured to do this

myself. . . but I entrusted the task to others.7

In other words, there is nothing sinister or subversive in Eunapius hints. They

appear cryptic to us only because we do not possess the book in which he explained

at length what he meant. But it is highly unlikely that his lost History contained an

account of the Paris acclamation that refuted Julians protestations of innocence.Even if Julian had lied, would Eunapius or his source Oribasius have wanted to

prove their hero a liar? In his Lives, Eunapius praised Julian as most godlike

(474, 475, 496), marvelous (477), and possessed of divine soul (474), and else-

where called him as great as God ( fr. 28.1). Photius claimed that Eunapius

History was written as an elaborate panegyric upon Julian.8 Oribasius, probably

Eunapius main source for the events in question, knew that Julians denial of respon-

sibility for the acclamation was an important component of his propaganda, which he

himself may have helped to shape. The suggestion that he wanted to set the record

straight is speculative, highly implausible, and made by those who uncritically link

Eunapius hints to the events at Paris.9

Furthermore, later historians who in turnrelied on EunapiusHistorygive no knowledge of alternative versions. Zosimus, gen-

erally regarded as an epitomator of Eunapius,10 presents the same version offered by

Julian, Libanius, and Ammianus.

Finally, we come to Eunapius statement that Oribasius made Julian emperor

through his virtues. It is unclear what apedeixe means: orchestrated his accession?

Prepared him morally for the office? Gave him encouragement? At the very least,

Oribasius stood by Julian as a good friend and encouraged him in difficult times,

or perhaps even saved him at one particular moment, though we will never know

what that was. There is no reason to relate this statement to the Paris acclamation

in particular. One attempt to do so, by trying also to retain the veracity of the officialaccount, produced an insecure Julian unknowingly driven to rebellion by Oribasius.11

But this reconstruction relies on an almost superhuman ability in Oribasius to manip-

ulate Julians psychology. By all accounts, it was Julian who marshalled the superna-

tural in the war against his cousin. It is, in fact, possible to link this statement (498) to

Eunapius brief account in 476 of the conspiracy involving the hierophant and

6 Pace W. E. Kaegi, The Emperor Julian at Naissus,Lantiquiteclassique44 (1975), 16171 at 165, the stories about the soothsayers are attested in independent sources and are consistentwith Julians interests; they need not be a rationalization after the fact of Julians militaryinability to proceed further against Constantius.

7

Julian,Letters9.382b and 8.415a b, trans. W. C. Wright,The Works of the Emperor Julian3 (Cambridge, MA and London, 1923), 209.

8 Photius, Bibliotheke 77.9 E.g. Bowersock (n. 2), 51. For a better explanation, see Baldwin (n. 2), 901.10 On the basis of Photius, Bibliotheke 98.11 Drinkwater (n. 2), 370 1.

S H O R T E R N O T E S654


4/4

Euhemerus. What Eunapius says more precisely is that Julian was impressed with

Oribasius medical skill (techne) and that Oribasius a pedeixe the former as emperorthrough his other virtues (aretai). It is possible that these other virtues are a refer-

ence to his skill in divination,12 in which he did not actually make Julian emperor

but rather revealed him as emperor (before the fact). In any case, we must not forget

that it took Julian almost two years to abolish the tyranny of Constantius after theParis acclamation.

The Ohio State University A N T H O N Y K A L D E L L I S

[email protected]

doi:10.1093/cq/bmi071

12 I thank the journals reader for this suggestion.

S H O R T E R N O T E S 655

julian the hierophant of eleusis

Documents